The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[OrangeTsar]

Haven’t paid attention to this trial since Daniels’ first or second day of testimony. This thread turning into a “totally going to be an acquittal” echo chamber has me mildly interested to see the result.

Not sure if it will be an acquittal just because of jury composition. But if it is a conviction, I expect one of the fastest overturns on appeal ever.

 

[CobbVol]

I've looked at several of those and seen none claiming a high probability of a guilty verdict.

You may need to recalibrate your bias meter.

I did this morning. It is in the normal continiuum range.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Have they linked Trump directly to the falsified documents directly yet??

Yes, Trump's lawyers pretty much caved on that argument yesterday. They got Cohen to agree he was never on retainer.

They are setting up the defense that Cohen was a T.O. employee and did what was needed to protect the business, the brand, and DJT. Hence, that's why the 2011 stuff with Stormy blog is important...Cohen testified he did that to protect brand and DJT back then.

 

[whodeycin85]

Yes, Trump's lawyers pretty much caved on that argument yesterday. They got Cohen to agree he was never on retainer.

They are setting up the defense that Cohen was a T.O. employee and did what was needed to protect the business, the brand, and DJT. Hence, that's why the 2011 stuff with Stormy blog is important...Cohen testified he did that to protect brand and DJT back then.

Thanks

 

[CobbVol]

The charging document from the communist attorney's case in NY. It shows 34 counts of falsifying business records and 34 phrases in each count of "with intent to defraud and commit another crime". For the Constitution's sake, hopefully what that crime is will be revealed soon. Stalin would be proud of the efforts of these prosecutor and further proof you can indeed indict a ham sandwich.

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

 

[RockyTop85]

Not sure if it will be an acquittal just because of jury composition. But if it is a conviction, I expect one of the fastest overturns on appeal ever.

Quick review of relevant case law makes that seem super unlikely. New York courts have upheld convictions under 175.10 when the person was acquitted of the underlying charge, reasoning that a jury could have found that they intended some other crime and that there’s no actus reus requirement. Had a long post written up but the forum is rejecting it.

 

[RockyTop85]

FWIW, I think people may be overestimating what they have to prove to get the conviction. Trying without the links:

From the jury instructions:

“Intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

Jury Instructions

This guy got charged with and acquitted of the enhancing crime and the appeals court said that was fine:

“Here, the jury's not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts. "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" (Penal Law § 175.10). Although the jury acquitted defendant of insurance fraud, which is the crime the People alleged that defendant intended to commit or conceal by falsifying business records, the jury could "convict defendant of falsifying business records if the jury concluded that defendant had [intended] to commit or conceal another crime, even if he was not convicted of the other crime…”

Case #1
After reviewing several similar cases, the Court of Appeals says this:

“Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement ... not any additional actus reus element”

Case #2

I have no opinion on what the outcome will be or whether it’s justified. I haven’t paid much attention to the proof. I’m solely interested in how well the certainty that the case has fallen apart meshes with reality, or if it’s another 2020 election/Chauvin trial situation.

CC: @BigOrangeMojo and @OrangeTsar

 

[BreatheUT]

Lot of irony here

Unless you can point to some specifics it's easy to make empty slapstick comments like an expert. It's very Alvin Bragg like.

 

[Sandman 423]

FWIW, I think people may be overestimating what they have to prove to get the conviction. Trying without the links:

From the jury instructions:


Jury Instructions

This guy got charged with and acquitted of the enhancing crime and the appeals court said that was fine:


Case #1
After reviewing several similar cases, the Court of Appeals says this:


Case #2

I have no opinion on what the outcome will be or whether it’s justified. I haven’t paid much attention to the proof. I’m solely interested in how well the certainty that the case has fallen apart meshes with reality, or if it’s another 2020 election/Chauvin trial situation.

CC: @BigOrangeMojo and @OrangeTsar

I believe most folks here believe he will be convicted. If we have learned anything since 2016 it would have to be not to believe anything that the talking heads or politicians say is remotely close to accurate.

 

[RockyTop85]

I believe most folks here believe he will be convicted. If we have learned anything since 2016 it would have to be not to believe anything that the talking heads or politicians say is remotely close to accurate.

I agree there’s a contingent of people here who have learned that. Some of them don’t believe it’s a good case, fwiw.

The last 24 hours or so, I’ve noticed that the “election was stolen”/“stayed behind the velvet ropes” crowd and maybe a few degrees more reasonable than that are talking like it is a foregone conclusion that the case has unraveled.

I’m just becoming more interested in the result and the reaction to it, based on that certainty.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[BreatheUT]

I think there is more certainty that since the jurors are sequestered that at least one of them went back to the hotel and pleasured themselves based on the report that Daniels testimony graphic, over the top and irrelevant unless you wanted to hear erotic sex tales.

 

[Gandalf]

This largely made up trial was always hanging on Cohen's ability to be a believable witness. Bragg knew from the beginning that this would happen on the stand, thats why he never bothered to bring this case in the first place until he got shamed into it by one of his progressive deputies. But its more than that, I think. Since he had to know it was a loser, the only real reason he would have brought this trial was to slow Trump's campaign down. To make him focus time, attention and money away from the campaign trail. For anyone else, it probably would have worked.

This is political corruption and the perversion of law, plain and simple.

 

[85SugarVol]

Haven’t paid attention to this trial since Daniels’ first or second day of testimony. This thread turning into a “totally going to be an acquittal” echo chamber has me mildly interested to see the result.

Any predictions yet?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The 'trial' has served it's purpose. It has kept Donald Trump off the campaign trail so he couldn't properly campaign. But it has also kept Donald Trump off the campaign trail so he couldn't properly campaign which has hurt the Democrats. LOL

They only way they win in November is to cheat again.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Have they linked Trump directly to the falsified documents directly yet??

Nope.